There is clearly an acceptable level, as even your digital camera is "photoshoping" what it saves to produce a better photo (Unless your using a raw format). Most people would say that adjusting levels/colors across the whole image is also acceptable manipulation. Once you begin using tools to alter specific portions of the image, it becomes totally a matter of opinion on how much is acceptable. Without seeing a before and after picture, you can't really judge whether what was done is acceptable, and the article didn't have one.

I think that adjusting levels might be okay, but any movement of elements of the image would be well into PS territory. I've been told that a big part of the genius of Ansel Adams was the result of tweaks in the development process.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

Pretty much this. I used to add shadows to things in the dark room, and that was in highschool. I even used diffrent filters on the enlarger to adjust the image, dodged and burned specific areas, stitched negitives together, preformed double exposures to produce neat effects, tons of stuff. It was a bit harder then the computer is, But you could accomplish alot with a good enlarger and some time.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

bobtheallmighty:I even used diffrent filters on the enlarger to adjust the image, dodged and burned specific areas, stitched negitives together, preformed double exposures to produce neat effects, tons of stuff. It was a bit harder then the computer is, But you could accomplish alot with a good enlarger and some time.

AverageAmericanGuy:Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

I'm against those things as well.

To be fair, I'm only against these things in the milieu of photography contests.

Where one person spends a month of their lives staked out to capture the perfect shot with the sun in the right place in the sky and the weather just so, another will take a mediocre base image and dodge and burn until what he's looking for 'pops'. It's a disservice to those who work hard for their pure shots.

Too bad. I love that photo and have been up to Lindisfarne to try and recreate my own version. I won a minor competition using a photo of the castle with a tremendously dramatic sky. I told no-one it was a sky replacement job and I feel slightly guilty, even though the rules say nothing to forbid this.

wildcardjack:I think that adjusting levels might be okay, but any movement of elements of the image would be well into PS territory. I've been told that a big part of the genius of Ansel Adams was the result of tweaks in the development process.

Exactly. If it's a direct analog of a darkroom process, it's OK to do it in Photoshop. (IMHO)

You can pick up good used 35mm film gear for pennies on the dollar, especially if you're not worried about compatibility with your DSLR system. You can get a good used Medium Format film outfit for less than an entry level DSLR.

I got two Canon Elan 7's for $50 each on EBay. Next purchase is some developing tanks and chemistry.

AverageAmericanGuy:Where one person spends a month of their lives staked out to capture the perfect shot with the sun in the right place in the sky and the weather just so, another will take a mediocre base image and dodge and burn until what he's looking for 'pops'. It's a disservice to those who work hard for their pure shots.

i'ld say give a good printer your hard wrought pure image and he/she would make it even better.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

Do you mean to say that Photoshop wasn't a totally original idea and name? I always wondered where Photoshop got the inspiration for tools like "Filter" "Lens Flare" and "Magic Wand."

clyph:wildcardjack: I think that adjusting levels might be okay, but any movement of elements of the image would be well into PS territory. I've been told that a big part of the genius of Ansel Adams was the result of tweaks in the development process.

Exactly. If it's a direct analog of a darkroom process, it's OK to do it in Photoshop. (IMHO)

AverageAmericanGuy:AverageAmericanGuy: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: AverageAmericanGuy: No photoshopping should be acceptable in a photography contest.

Photographers have been shopping their images since film was invented. A darkroom gives you a great deal of control over brightness and contrast, tone, etc. You can crop, and you can even control specific portions of the photograph without affecting other areas. It's seems silly that it's against the rule to do with a computer what film photographers do by waving little paddles around.

I'm against those things as well.

To be fair, I'm only against these things in the milieu of photography contests.

Where one person spends a month of their lives staked out to capture the perfect shot with the sun in the right place in the sky and the weather just so, another will take a mediocre base image and dodge and burn until what he's looking for 'pops'. It's a disservice to those who work hard for their pure shots.

I have to agree with the Dodge/Burn in a contest, but exposure adjustment, levels and such I think are just fine. Basically, anything done in Adobe CameraRAW is fine, since you are basically just digitally choosing your development mixture. Once you've imported the photo into Photoshop, however, add your watermark and you are done. No filters, no layers (other than a watermark).

Mock26:If what you did could be duplicated in a dark room then it should be allowed. Anything beyond that should not be allowed.

For how long should photographic skills be limited by the possibilities of a chemical process which has already been obsolete for ten years or more? In fifty years time there will be hardly any photographers around who have ever used film or paper.